RustyBug 
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Shasoc wrote:
Thanks Kent. I appreciate your critique of GM edit and I can also agree with part of it.
What surprises me is that you seem to have missed the very important point: "What happened to the importance of the intent of the photographer in a photo”? to use your own words:
As I said, the first image was posted just to show what the camera saw: it’s a un-edited, un-cropped, un-touched SOOC Jpeg image. So, any critique, suggestion to improve that image would be directed more to the camera’s software. And I am afraid that those suggestions, as much as they are appreciated, will be taken in no consideration by the camera.
When I downloaded it I thought: “That is not what I saw”.
So, you can crop the first image as you like, find the perfect WB, the perfect tonality, change the text from "Rut" to "Tru", whatever, but it will never reflect the feelings I wanted to express (intent). Too many distractions.
I was not interested in just recording what the camera saw, but, more importantly, how I felt about what I saw. So, how do you express/share those feelings in that photo?
That was the point I wanted to make. I believe that by editing a photo we are getting way more natural results than any SOOC image. I think that any editing program can show the emotional truth of a scene, much better than a camera would be able to.
So, yes, I try to overcome the limitations of a camera using all the means offered by modern editing technology, to express those feelings and eventually elicit the same mood on the viewer (intent). Whether I succeed or not is a different matter.
Socrate
P. S. BTW, you never answered my question: which one did you like best? ...Show more →
I understand your point about my point about "seeing" ... but, I think that my main point with regard to that is what you do with your capture / composition / exposure / editing / adjusting of the capture. What you've done (which is fine) is to totally fabricate / create something that didn't exist at all. At that point, the mission of trying to convey / present what you were seeing is being transformed into a mission of you creating the fabrication into what you wanted to see. Semantics being such as they are, we could go a bit circular, here ... and, I "see" the point you are presenting. 
As to the choice between the two ... I'd lean toward the first one (similar to GMA's).
I believe that by editing a photo we are getting way more natural results than any SOOC image.
I'm not sure that your choice of words (i.e. editing = more natural) is coming across well. Editing may afford an opportunity to tap into the (natural  ) emotive more than sooc ... and that was essentially what Adams was doing by his darkroom manipulations, to try and create a sense of presence wrt to what it was like to be there in the moment.
If it helps, I can say "Wow, I really like the way you took half an image and merged it with half of an AI program and made a masterpiece, that shows us the fantasy that was in your mind ... it really moves me emotively." But, I know that you are wanting an honest response. My honest response is that I don't care for the second one.
But, for me ... the thing is that you (this is a compliment) have shown us years of your mastery of such things to craft images from composites of your choosing. TBH, this one pales in comparison to your other works, and doesn't do much for me aesthetically or technically (AI tells are present, too).
Comparing the two ... it is obvious to me that the latter one is much more fabrication than the first one. For me, that invokes a degree of diminishing interest when comparing it to the former capture from which it originated. But, that's just me ... and, yes, it is a highly subjective perspective.
For me, the context of her style of dress is much more congruous with the context of the BG in the first one. In the second one, I find the context of her style of dress to be incongruous with the BG ... it reminds me of either a contrived (vs. natural) studio session, or it looks like it should be an underwater shot, yet she doesn't appear to be underwater. That also presents a mismatch in key lighting temperature, too. The decision to alter the congruity between the subject and the BG (while shifting it to your goals for the image) was a step in reverse for me.
Hence, my recommendation of GMA's to maybe pull down the BG a bit if folks were finding the text / bg still a bit competing. There's a balance between congruous, competing and incongruous. Folks will vary on where they find that line of balance / removal to be. Of the three, I still find GMA's to be the most natural looking. Maybe if we had more context in your 2nd one, the naturalness of an environment (e.g. stage lighting behind her, etc.) might come through. The full on removal of the BG, removes any sense of the (natural) environment, she was in.
You asked ... twice. 
Shasoc wrote:
Which one you like best? And why?
P. S. BTW, you never answered my question: which one did you like best?
That's the question you asked, and it is different from asking for a critique of the changes you made ... and how the changes impacted its ability to present your intent, for the emotive you felt about your experience or the reason why you crafted the image. When we make such sweeping changes to an image to align to our intent, it's almost a moot point to even ask the question of whether or not someone else likes what we did to it (especially for someone as skilled AND knowledgeable as yourself). At that point, we clearly didn't make if for them, as we made it for ourselves, the way we wanted it to be, moreover than anything else. To a degree, there's a place for that. But, when we are truly in THAT place ... it's of little concern what others think.
TBH, I feel like this one was an attempt to advance an agenda ... and, that's the way it came across to me in the image. Wish I could offer something more supportive and encouraging about this one (recognizing your emotional connection to your crafted image), but we've always shot straight with each other, so no reason this should be any different. Swing and a miss for me ... it's a NUTSS shot for me.
For those who have not seen NUTSS before:
NUTTS = Not Up To Socrate's Standards (based on Kent's appreciation Socrate's body of work).
|
